Update: The Flying Sardar?
UPDATE: Canadian courts ruled against Baljinder Singh’s request for a religious exemption to its mandatory motorcycle helmet law. While the court found that the law DID violate his right to religious freedom, they felt that the net benefit to the country’s healthcare system justified such an infringement [Globe & Mail]. The court also argues that failure to wear a helmet raises the potential for emotional risk and trauma should Mr. Singh — and other Sikhs — suffer injury in a collision. I found the last point a little weird; was the court attempting to avoid civil suits against it for negligence or some other such duress (lawyer-readers, can you help me out here)? Mr. Singh will be appealing the Ontario decision.
</update>
We saw this story last week, but I wanted to comment on the recent coverage of a kesdari Sikh who challenged Ontario’s motorcycle helmet statute under grounds that it is unfairly applied to turban-wearing Sikhs [cite 1, cite 2]:
Ontario Court Judge James Blacklock was told yesterday that, in order to disprove a Crown theory that turbans unravel at high speed and cause accidents, Mr. Badesha drove around Cayuga Speedway at 110 kilometres an hour… Mr. Badesha and the human rights commission maintain the helmet law discriminates against Sikhs because their religion obliges them to cover their long hair with nothing more than a turban.
Apparently the twist in the story has shifted from whether a religious exemption is ok to whether the disproportionate likelihood of injury, and the assumed increased cost to Canada’s public health care system, warrant an exemption. From a panthic perspective, Mr. Badesha’s objection to the mandatory helmet law is reasonable and justified.
However, we know from experience that other countries have adopted differing approaches to the Sikh right to maintain his/her uniform. In the United States, courts and commissions have ruled in both police departments and city agencies that wearing the turban does NOT violate uniform policies, and that creating policies without accommodation violates individuals’ right to the free exercise of religion. Conversely, in France an uber-strict ban on “religious articles” (barring, of course, “minor” Christian pieces) has led to a series of disputes about the role of religion in public space.
Sikhs face various challenges when trying to explain accommodation and observance in regions where Sikhi is not the default or majority faith. So we have a few questions at play here:
- Would this issue be moot if Canada did not have public health care?
- Would attitudes towards “minority accommodation” differ if the default understanding of faith had a normalized view of religious uniforms?
- Given that, in the U.S. and Canada, Sikhi is still not understood as a mainstream faith, what are tools, analogies, and explanations Sikhs could use to help explain the context and motivation for our religious requirements and observances?
- What qualifies as accommodation, and what is seen as “normal”?
91 Responses to “Update: The Flying Sardar?”
The situation with turbans has not resolved in the US. A friend of mine is able to take and pass the test for Sheriff in Los Angles, but not acctually become a sheriff. He can however, volunteer his time and wear a turban.
The situation with turbans has not resolved in the US. A friend of mine is able to take and pass the test for Sheriff in Los Angles, but not acctually become a sheriff. He can however, volunteer his time and wear a turban.
my brother was denied a job at the U.S. centers for disease control (CDC) because his turban would violate their uniform requirements for the particular post.
my brother was denied a job at the U.S. centers for disease control (CDC) because his turban would violate their uniform requirements for the particular post.
Have either of your relatives or friends sought legal counsel? In the case of becoming a sheriff, I'm pretty certain that would be considered an inappropriate requirement (given that other courts and districts have decided otherwise). I would argue the same for the CDC — there are doctors who wear turbans in the OR.
Not denying your experiences, just wondering if perhaps there should be more push back.
Have either of your relatives or friends sought legal counsel? In the case of becoming a sheriff, I’m pretty certain that would be considered an inappropriate requirement (given that other courts and districts have decided otherwise). I would argue the same for the CDC — there are doctors who wear turbans in the OR.
Not denying your experiences, just wondering if perhaps there should be more push back.
Such situations call for us to fight for equality. For those of you that want to but don't know how to – please reach out to organizations such as http://www.UNITEDSIKHS.org. They are Sikhs who are experts in the legal field and have experience with representing Sikhs and their cause.
We must fight the fight, no matter what the outcome is. Even Guru Gobind Singh Ji lost a few. Equality doesn't come easy but our community has the minds and the hearts to make it happen.
I implore you (Sonny, Siri Atma) to highlight these injustices and seek action. Do it for yourself, do it your fellow Sikhs, do it for your kids.
Such situations call for us to fight for equality. For those of you that want to but don’t know how to – please reach out to organizations such as http://www.UNITEDSIKHS.org. They are Sikhs who are experts in the legal field and have experience with representing Sikhs and their cause.
We must fight the fight, no matter what the outcome is. Even Guru Gobind Singh Ji lost a few. Equality doesn’t come easy but our community has the minds and the hearts to make it happen.
I implore you (Sonny, Siri Atma) to highlight these injustices and seek action. Do it for yourself, do it your fellow Sikhs, do it for your kids.
The below is from the article located here that shows the effect on the budget is minuscule:
The below is from the article located here that shows the effect on the budget is minuscule:
I always thought that the turban was not an actual requirement in Sikhi, and that, rather, it was the covering of the head that was important. In your link to the article on the Reht Maryada above, I presume that you are quoting the above requirement:
Perhaps the original requirement is lost in translation? Interpreting the above strictly would seem to imply the following:
1) You cannot wear a patka (parna)
2) You cannot remove your turban inside the home
I really believe the interpretation here is central to the case. If wearing of an actual turban is not the requirement, and a hybrid solution exists (e.g. wearing a special type of helmet over a patka), then this seems to favour the prosecution in this case.
If this is the case, then maybe this is more of an argument of wearing a particular style of turban while riding a motorcycle.
I always thought that the turban was not an actual requirement in Sikhi, and that, rather, it was the covering of the head that was important. In your link to the article on the Reht Maryada above, I presume that you are quoting the above requirement:
Perhaps the original requirement is lost in translation? Interpreting the above strictly would seem to imply the following:
1) You cannot wear a patka (parna)
2) You cannot remove your turban inside the home
I really believe the interpretation here is central to the case. If wearing of an actual turban is not the requirement, and a hybrid solution exists (e.g. wearing a special type of helmet over a patka), then this seems to favour the prosecution in this case.
If this is the case, then maybe this is more of an argument of wearing a particular style of turban while riding a motorcycle.
Aman,
You raise an interesting point; however, I do not believe the interpretation you reference will have any significant bearing on the case. The Crown may indeed raise the question of what type of turban constitutes the required turban, but I cannot see them going very far with it.
It certainly helps that the common stance regarding the turban as an article of faith helps establish Mr. Badesha's wearing of the turban as part and parcel of a genuine belief system; however, Canadian courts would not frown upon Mr. Badesha's adherence to wearing a turban, even if he was part of a tiny minority of Sikhs who felt the turban was necessary to their faith.
The court's analysis would hinge upon whether Mr. Badesha's personal belief was genuine, regardless of whether the majority of Sikhs saw the turban as insignificant, or even if accepted interpretation of the Sikh code frowned upon the wearing of a turban. This principle has been established in Canadian case law.
As in all Canadian cases involving the infringement of religious rights/freedoms, the court will focus on accomodation. Very generally, the court's anaylsis is likely to touch upon the following questions:
1. Was there an infringement of Mr. Badesha's freedom to practice his religion? (Yes, clearly so.)
2. If so, can Mr. Badesha's religious rights be accomodated without causing undue hardship?
Without having followed the case, I'm pretty sure the Crown's arguments rests pretty heavily on the premise that accomodation of Mr. Badesha's rights will cause undue hardship (to the health care system, to insurance companies, to enforcement agencies etc.)
In a similar case in British Columbia (1990, Dhillon v. British Columbia), the court gave great weight to statistics, and found the potential impact of turban-wearing motorcyclist Sikhs on public health care or insurance rates, to be statistically insignificant.
Given that Mr. Badesha's counsel has brought similar statistics to the court's attention, and that the Dhillon case is a compelling precedent, I find it difficult to believe the court will not give similar weight to the stats in this case.
Aman,
You raise an interesting point; however, I do not believe the interpretation you reference will have any significant bearing on the case. The Crown may indeed raise the question of what type of turban constitutes the required turban, but I cannot see them going very far with it.
It certainly helps that the common stance regarding the turban as an article of faith helps establish Mr. Badesha’s wearing of the turban as part and parcel of a genuine belief system; however, Canadian courts would not frown upon Mr. Badesha’s adherence to wearing a turban, even if he was part of a tiny minority of Sikhs who felt the turban was necessary to their faith.
The court’s analysis would hinge upon whether Mr. Badesha’s personal belief was genuine, regardless of whether the majority of Sikhs saw the turban as insignificant, or even if accepted interpretation of the Sikh code frowned upon the wearing of a turban. This principle has been established in Canadian case law.
As in all Canadian cases involving the infringement of religious rights/freedoms, the court will focus on accomodation. Very generally, the court’s anaylsis is likely to touch upon the following questions:
1. Was there an infringement of Mr. Badesha’s freedom to practice his religion? (Yes, clearly so.)
2. If so, can Mr. Badesha’s religious rights be accomodated without causing undue hardship?
Without having followed the case, I’m pretty sure the Crown’s arguments rests pretty heavily on the premise that accomodation of Mr. Badesha’s rights will cause undue hardship (to the health care system, to insurance companies, to enforcement agencies etc.)
In a similar case in British Columbia (1990, Dhillon v. British Columbia), the court gave great weight to statistics, and found the potential impact of turban-wearing motorcyclist Sikhs on public health care or insurance rates, to be statistically insignificant.
Given that Mr. Badesha’s counsel has brought similar statistics to the court’s attention, and that the Dhillon case is a compelling precedent, I find it difficult to believe the court will not give similar weight to the stats in this case.
The original Flying Sardar.
The original Flying Sardar.
P. Singh,
Thank you for your very informative analysis. You stated that Canadian case law has established that the court only needs to determine if Mr. Badesha's personal belief was genuine. Do you know if this applies to all genuine personal beliefs, or only to personal beliefs that are attributed to a well-established religion? I'm wondering if case law already makes a distinction of what constitutes a well-established religion.
I did not know that the court's analysis depends upon whether the religious accommodation causes undue hardship. In hindsight, this makes sense, as the Crown's arguments do depend on demonstrating some sort of adverse effect on the public (e.g. health care costs and insurance rates).
Based on this analysis, it does seem to me now that Mr. Badesha has a good chance of winning his case.
P. Singh,
Thank you for your very informative analysis. You stated that Canadian case law has established that the court only needs to determine if Mr. Badesha’s personal belief was genuine. Do you know if this applies to all genuine personal beliefs, or only to personal beliefs that are attributed to a well-established religion? I’m wondering if case law already makes a distinction of what constitutes a well-established religion.
I did not know that the court’s analysis depends upon whether the religious accommodation causes undue hardship. In hindsight, this makes sense, as the Crown’s arguments do depend on demonstrating some sort of adverse effect on the public (e.g. health care costs and insurance rates).
Based on this analysis, it does seem to me now that Mr. Badesha has a good chance of winning his case.
Hi Aman,
You're welcome, and again, you raise an interesting question: whether the same analysis applies to all genuine personal beliefs or only those attributed to a well-established religion.
I should probably know the answer, but unfortunately I do not have a concrete answer. That said, I would venture that, yes, in Canada, the same analysis would apply to genuinely held beliefs, irrespective of whether they are attributed to a well-established religion.
As far as turban-related, kirpan-related cases go, most times, the Sikhs involved will get written letters from gurdwara committees, the Akal Takhat, Sikh authorities etc. to establish the 'genuiness' of wearing the turban and/or kirpan. Now, this does raise the question – why would they need these other bodies to establish the genuiness of their belief…from a practical standpoint, I'm guessing it's a lot easier to quickly establish 'genuiness' via established institutions.
I think you are right – Mr. Badesha's chances look very good.
Hi Aman,
You’re welcome, and again, you raise an interesting question: whether the same analysis applies to all genuine personal beliefs or only those attributed to a well-established religion.
I should probably know the answer, but unfortunately I do not have a concrete answer. That said, I would venture that, yes, in Canada, the same analysis would apply to genuinely held beliefs, irrespective of whether they are attributed to a well-established religion.
As far as turban-related, kirpan-related cases go, most times, the Sikhs involved will get written letters from gurdwara committees, the Akal Takhat, Sikh authorities etc. to establish the ‘genuiness’ of wearing the turban and/or kirpan. Now, this does raise the question – why would they need these other bodies to establish the genuiness of their belief…from a practical standpoint, I’m guessing it’s a lot easier to quickly establish ‘genuiness’ via established institutions.
I think you are right – Mr. Badesha’s chances look very good.
[quote comment="772"]Have either of your relatives or friends sought legal counsel?
Not denying your experiences, just wondering if perhaps there should be more push back.[/quote]
yeah, my brother was in touch with SALDEF and the ACLU about it, they sent a complaint letter, but to date the policy has obviously not been changed. it somehow falls under the same uniform requirements that bans religious headwear in the military. my brother actually has been working for the CDC for the last several years, but he was forced out of a particular post (that paid better and had better benefits) because of the uniform requirement. it's totally ludicrous and must be changed.
[quote comment=”772″]Have either of your relatives or friends sought legal counsel?
Not denying your experiences, just wondering if perhaps there should be more push back.[/quote]
yeah, my brother was in touch with SALDEF and the ACLU about it, they sent a complaint letter, but to date the policy has obviously not been changed. it somehow falls under the same uniform requirements that bans religious headwear in the military. my brother actually has been working for the CDC for the last several years, but he was forced out of a particular post (that paid better and had better benefits) because of the uniform requirement. it’s totally ludicrous and must be changed.
oh and of course i agree that we must fight and struggle for justice and against all the ways that racism continues to infect this society. and in doing this, we have to connect the fight for our rights as sikhs to the struggles of other oppressed and marginalized communities and build real solidarity and a vibrant movement.
oh and of course i agree that we must fight and struggle for justice and against all the ways that racism continues to infect this society. and in doing this, we have to connect the fight for our rights as sikhs to the struggles of other oppressed and marginalized communities and build real solidarity and a vibrant movement.
Sikhs should be reasonable in all their demands. I have knowledge of some people who have said that it is unfair that Sikhs are not allowed to openly carry 3 foot long kirpans on the streets of England. This is clearly unreasonable because such a thing will cause alarm and distress to non Sikhs. There has to be reciprocity.
Sikhs should be reasonable in all their demands. I have knowledge of some people who have said that it is unfair that Sikhs are not allowed to openly carry 3 foot long kirpans on the streets of England. This is clearly unreasonable because such a thing will cause alarm and distress to non Sikhs. There has to be reciprocity.
Ruby,
Are you saying Mr. Badesha is being unreasonable? That a Sikh wanting to ride a motorcycle sans helmet, albeit in contravention of existing law, is being unreasonable?
It seems that you are implying Mr. Badesha is being unreasonable – I don't know what other connection the "3 foot long kirpan" example has to Mr. Badesha's legal battle.
Please clarify. Thanks.
Ruby,
Are you saying Mr. Badesha is being unreasonable? That a Sikh wanting to ride a motorcycle sans helmet, albeit in contravention of existing law, is being unreasonable?
It seems that you are implying Mr. Badesha is being unreasonable – I don’t know what other connection the “3 foot long kirpan” example has to Mr. Badesha’s legal battle.
Please clarify. Thanks.
I should point out, I don't believe the measure of unreasonableness is tied to what causes alarm and distress to others. Alarm and distress in such cases are often a product of ignorance. Adherence to religious principles should not be limited by the ignorance of others.
There are many, many people who are alarmed and distressed by 5 inch long kirpans in the work place, or by the fact that young Sikh children wear kirpans to school. In general, I would not say Sikhs wearing kirpans to work or to school are being unreasonable in excercising (or demanding) their right to do so – despite the fact many non-Sikhs are (initially at least) distressed by this article of faith.
I should point out, I don’t believe the measure of unreasonableness is tied to what causes alarm and distress to others. Alarm and distress in such cases are often a product of ignorance. Adherence to religious principles should not be limited by the ignorance of others.
There are many, many people who are alarmed and distressed by 5 inch long kirpans in the work place, or by the fact that young Sikh children wear kirpans to school. In general, I would not say Sikhs wearing kirpans to work or to school are being unreasonable in excercising (or demanding) their right to do so – despite the fact many non-Sikhs are (initially at least) distressed by this article of faith.
It is interesting that the kirpan issue has arisen.
I do not think it's unreasonable that Sikhs seek the right for children to carry kirpans to school, but I do believe that Sikhs need to accept the fact that kirpans may be banned from schools. In this case, it is a safety issue of banning potential weapons at school.
Every situation needs to be treated differently…we should not expect a blanket rule that kirpans would be allowed in every situation. For example, we all accept that kirpans are not allowed on a person when boarding a plane. In my view, bringing a kirpan to work is a different situation than bringing a kirpan to school (adult vs child).
It is interesting that the kirpan issue has arisen.
I do not think it’s unreasonable that Sikhs seek the right for children to carry kirpans to school, but I do believe that Sikhs need to accept the fact that kirpans may be banned from schools. In this case, it is a safety issue of banning potential weapons at school.
Every situation needs to be treated differently…we should not expect a blanket rule that kirpans would be allowed in every situation. For example, we all accept that kirpans are not allowed on a person when boarding a plane. In my view, bringing a kirpan to work is a different situation than bringing a kirpan to school (adult vs child).
aman,
why is it different to bring a kirpan on a plane than to bring it to school?
before 9/11 (and i hate using that as a reference, but it is a reality) airlines rarely had any problem allowing sikhs on with kirpans – and since when has a plane been held up with a kirpan? if we look to recent news it is schools that seem more dangerous.
im just curious where you are coming from.
ruby,
how do you define reasonable? there are places in the world that sikhs walk around opening with 3 foot kirpans – so is it always reasonable? and to add to p.singh's comments – really sikhs with turbans shock people, as does the fact that we do not cut our hair (people are especially shocked by sikh women on this front). but who decides what is reasonable to be able to do? what is it that we are demanding when we demand the right to wear a kara in a french school? is it to contravene or be treated as special or to be treated as people with different beliefs that are valid?
aman,
why is it different to bring a kirpan on a plane than to bring it to school?
before 9/11 (and i hate using that as a reference, but it is a reality) airlines rarely had any problem allowing sikhs on with kirpans – and since when has a plane been held up with a kirpan? if we look to recent news it is schools that seem more dangerous.
im just curious where you are coming from.
ruby,
how do you define reasonable? there are places in the world that sikhs walk around opening with 3 foot kirpans – so is it always reasonable? and to add to p.singh’s comments – really sikhs with turbans shock people, as does the fact that we do not cut our hair (people are especially shocked by sikh women on this front). but who decides what is reasonable to be able to do? what is it that we are demanding when we demand the right to wear a kara in a french school? is it to contravene or be treated as special or to be treated as people with different beliefs that are valid?
Singh,
The difference lies in that there is much greater emphasis placed on security on a plane than at a school. To board a plane, each one of us goes through a series of security checks to ensure that nobody brings anything on the plane that could be easily used as a lethal weapon. Therefore, security in this context is paramount.
There is less emphasis placed on security at a school. To go to a school, you usually do not need to go through a series of security checks. In this case, security is not as paramount as it is when boarding a plane. Of course, some inner-city schools do require students to go through metal detectors, and these particular schools might have heightened security requirements.
A plane has never been held up with a kirpan before; but then again, before 9/11, a plane has never been held up with box cutters before. Even if one brings a kirpan onto a plane strictly as a religious symbol, there is an inherent risk of having the kirpan on the plane itself, as it can be forcibly removed from the person by another individual or group of individuals.
Singh,
The difference lies in that there is much greater emphasis placed on security on a plane than at a school. To board a plane, each one of us goes through a series of security checks to ensure that nobody brings anything on the plane that could be easily used as a lethal weapon. Therefore, security in this context is paramount.
There is less emphasis placed on security at a school. To go to a school, you usually do not need to go through a series of security checks. In this case, security is not as paramount as it is when boarding a plane. Of course, some inner-city schools do require students to go through metal detectors, and these particular schools might have heightened security requirements.
A plane has never been held up with a kirpan before; but then again, before 9/11, a plane has never been held up with box cutters before. Even if one brings a kirpan onto a plane strictly as a religious symbol, there is an inherent risk of having the kirpan on the plane itself, as it can be forcibly removed from the person by another individual or group of individuals.
[quote comment="799"]Ruby,
Are you saying Mr. Badesha is being unreasonable? That a Sikh wanting to ride a motorcycle sans helmet, albeit in contravention of existing law, is being unreasonable?
It seems that you are implying Mr. Badesha is being unreasonable – I don't know what other connection the "3 foot long kirpan" example has to Mr. Badesha's legal battle.
Please clarify. Thanks.[/quote]
I'm saying that Sikhs should be reasonable in their demands. I don't think Sikhs should expect to have the right to openly carry three foot long kirpans in public, as some Sikhs I have spoken to have expressed a wish to do. I made this clear in my original post.
[quote comment=”799″]Ruby,
Are you saying Mr. Badesha is being unreasonable? That a Sikh wanting to ride a motorcycle sans helmet, albeit in contravention of existing law, is being unreasonable?
It seems that you are implying Mr. Badesha is being unreasonable – I don’t know what other connection the “3 foot long kirpan” example has to Mr. Badesha’s legal battle.
Please clarify. Thanks.[/quote]
I’m saying that Sikhs should be reasonable in their demands. I don’t think Sikhs should expect to have the right to openly carry three foot long kirpans in public, as some Sikhs I have spoken to have expressed a wish to do. I made this clear in my original post.
[quote comment="808"]aman,
ruby,
how do you define reasonable? there are places in the world that sikhs walk around opening with 3 foot kirpans – so is it always reasonable? and to add to p.singh's comments – really sikhs with turbans shock people, as does the fact that we do not cut our hair (people are especially shocked by sikh women on this front). but who decides what is reasonable to be able to do? what is it that we are demanding when we demand the right to wear a kara in a french school? is it to contravene or be treated as special or to be treated as people with different beliefs that are valid?[/quote]
Causing distress and intimidation and fear amongst people by openly wearing a large kirpan is an unreasonable demand to make upon society. Daggers are scary. If kirpans are to be worn they must be kept unsheated, be of a reasonable size and bluntness, and be worn underneath clothing. That's a reasonable accomodation to make. Amritdharis can continue wearing their kirpan, and society is not intimidated and distressed by people openly carrying knives, especially when knife crime is a major concern in society.
Wouldn't you say that this is a reasonable and reciprocal accomodation?
[quote comment=”808″]aman,
ruby,
how do you define reasonable? there are places in the world that sikhs walk around opening with 3 foot kirpans – so is it always reasonable? and to add to p.singh’s comments – really sikhs with turbans shock people, as does the fact that we do not cut our hair (people are especially shocked by sikh women on this front). but who decides what is reasonable to be able to do? what is it that we are demanding when we demand the right to wear a kara in a french school? is it to contravene or be treated as special or to be treated as people with different beliefs that are valid?[/quote]
Causing distress and intimidation and fear amongst people by openly wearing a large kirpan is an unreasonable demand to make upon society. Daggers are scary. If kirpans are to be worn they must be kept unsheated, be of a reasonable size and bluntness, and be worn underneath clothing. That’s a reasonable accomodation to make. Amritdharis can continue wearing their kirpan, and society is not intimidated and distressed by people openly carrying knives, especially when knife crime is a major concern in society.
Wouldn’t you say that this is a reasonable and reciprocal accomodation?
Also, the kara issue is not the same as the kirpan issue I just made, so you're being disingenuous by conflating them. There are different issues relating to the kirpan which do not relate to kara.
Also, the kara issue is not the same as the kirpan issue I just made, so you’re being disingenuous by conflating them. There are different issues relating to the kirpan which do not relate to kara.
I know personally of quite a few cases in which kirpans have been unsheathed in public in Britain causing fear and intimidation. It's just that they have not made major headline news in a massive way that people don't have them as reference points.
One case involved a recently arrived immigrant from India taking out his kirpan in a town centre causing great alarm and distress. The police were called and he was advised that culturally he could not do that because it is wrong to display weapons in public. Another case I know of took place in Scotland when a Sikh student unsheathed his kirpan in school and threatened pupils with it. He was subsequently transferred to another school and the story was hushed up so that it would not damage race relations.
During Vaisakhi in Birmingham last year fights took place in a public park between groups of Sikhs in conflict over management of a Gurdwara. Many were stabbed by kirpans and one man almost died. Sikh youths have been charged with attempted murder. There are quite a few other occasions in which kirpans have been unsheathed in public in Britain with intent to intimidate.
I think we can all agree that these are not incidents we wish to see occur, and that as such, there is a responsibility on Sikhs to wear their kirpan with responsibility and be reasonable in their demands regarding them. Having spoken to young men who are particularly fundamentalist followers of a certain sect, they expect that they should have the right to openly wear shastars of massive size, they really believe that they should have the right to walk around the streets of Britain openly carrying what actually amounts to swords. It is not wrong to tell them that this is an unreasonable demand to make.
I know personally of quite a few cases in which kirpans have been unsheathed in public in Britain causing fear and intimidation. It’s just that they have not made major headline news in a massive way that people don’t have them as reference points.
One case involved a recently arrived immigrant from India taking out his kirpan in a town centre causing great alarm and distress. The police were called and he was advised that culturally he could not do that because it is wrong to display weapons in public. Another case I know of took place in Scotland when a Sikh student unsheathed his kirpan in school and threatened pupils with it. He was subsequently transferred to another school and the story was hushed up so that it would not damage race relations.
During Vaisakhi in Birmingham last year fights took place in a public park between groups of Sikhs in conflict over management of a Gurdwara. Many were stabbed by kirpans and one man almost died. Sikh youths have been charged with attempted murder. There are quite a few other occasions in which kirpans have been unsheathed in public in Britain with intent to intimidate.
I think we can all agree that these are not incidents we wish to see occur, and that as such, there is a responsibility on Sikhs to wear their kirpan with responsibility and be reasonable in their demands regarding them. Having spoken to young men who are particularly fundamentalist followers of a certain sect, they expect that they should have the right to openly wear shastars of massive size, they really believe that they should have the right to walk around the streets of Britain openly carrying what actually amounts to swords. It is not wrong to tell them that this is an unreasonable demand to make.
Ruby,
You introduced the three-foot kirpan example to highlight 'unreasonableness' in an article discussing Mr. Badesha's demand to wear a turban while riding a motorcycle. It was not clear wether you were implying Mr. Badesha was being unreasonable or were simply raising another point of interest.
Ruby,
You introduced the three-foot kirpan example to highlight ‘unreasonableness’ in an article discussing Mr. Badesha’s demand to wear a turban while riding a motorcycle. It was not clear wether you were implying Mr. Badesha was being unreasonable or were simply raising another point of interest.
Ruby,
I cannot agree with your emphasis on public perception being the litmus test for what a Sikh can or cannot do in adherence to his/her faith.
I strongly disagree with your comments that the kirpan must be worn underneath clothing. Certainly not. Every Sikh should follow her/his faith fearlessly. The public's ignorant fear should not limit a Sikh in observing tenets of the faith. I have no issue with Sikhs wearing kirpans underneath their clothing, and none with those choosing to wear them outside of their clothing – the choice, however, should be personal, and not pushed down their throat by anyone.
It can be argued fairly strongly, that, in a post-9/11 world, segments of society are very intimidated by turban wearing, bearded men. That they are intimidated, is reason to educate them – not a reason to acquiesce to their ignorance.
Re kirpans, that there are a tiny number of individuals who may have used the kirpan as a weapon, should have little to no bearing on the ability to wear kirpans openly.
You have mentioned the school environment in one of your examples. I would ask you, are you aware of a kirpan being used as a weapon in any school? Could you please provide the case reference? (I am not asking this facetiously – genuinely curious as I am not aware of any such case).
On the other hand, much violence has been committed by baseball bats, hockey sticks, automobiles, pens, pencils, school bags, wet towels on school premises. Yet, these items, all of which have been used as bona fide weapons against other students, are happily allowed on school premises.
In contrast, despite no statistical evidence of violence, some will fear the kirpan based entirely on superficial grounds – its shape. It all falls on ignorance. In British Columbia, there is a large Sikh community, and well integrated into the public school system; no one bats an eye at Sikh students openly wearing their kirpans because the public, in general, has a better understanding of the Sikh faith and the kirpan.
Ruby,
I cannot agree with your emphasis on public perception being the litmus test for what a Sikh can or cannot do in adherence to his/her faith.
I strongly disagree with your comments that the kirpan must be worn underneath clothing. Certainly not. Every Sikh should follow her/his faith fearlessly. The public’s ignorant fear should not limit a Sikh in observing tenets of the faith. I have no issue with Sikhs wearing kirpans underneath their clothing, and none with those choosing to wear them outside of their clothing – the choice, however, should be personal, and not pushed down their throat by anyone.
It can be argued fairly strongly, that, in a post-9/11 world, segments of society are very intimidated by turban wearing, bearded men. That they are intimidated, is reason to educate them – not a reason to acquiesce to their ignorance.
Re kirpans, that there are a tiny number of individuals who may have used the kirpan as a weapon, should have little to no bearing on the ability to wear kirpans openly.
You have mentioned the school environment in one of your examples. I would ask you, are you aware of a kirpan being used as a weapon in any school? Could you please provide the case reference? (I am not asking this facetiously – genuinely curious as I am not aware of any such case).
On the other hand, much violence has been committed by baseball bats, hockey sticks, automobiles, pens, pencils, school bags, wet towels on school premises. Yet, these items, all of which have been used as bona fide weapons against other students, are happily allowed on school premises.
In contrast, despite no statistical evidence of violence, some will fear the kirpan based entirely on superficial grounds – its shape. It all falls on ignorance. In British Columbia, there is a large Sikh community, and well integrated into the public school system; no one bats an eye at Sikh students openly wearing their kirpans because the public, in general, has a better understanding of the Sikh faith and the kirpan.
Ruby,
1 – I do not agree with your reasonableness standard or the example you give.
2 – My example/analogy is not disingenuous (please refrain from making inflammatory accusations), but it goes to my point – that we as sikhs are not asking for the right to carry weapons or to be treated in some special way, but rather to be able to practice our faith as we do in other places. Rules of accommodation are created for this very reason.
Just to connect the kara comment more clearly for you – in France, the powers that be are distressed and intimidated by simple showings of religious affiliation – including the kara. By the logic presented in your posts, this is enough to ask Sikhs to refrain from wearing karas. This is the same logic used against kirpans. It is also used to racial profile people at airports.
One problem I see with this type of logic is that it is not engaged enough with helping people understand each other, but instead it is based around fitting in – or "reciprocating" – you let me keep something and I will give something up. What if our reciprocation in the form of wearing a kirpan of a "reasonable size" or hiding it under our clothes, is not enough? What if the community you are reciprocating with/trying to please is not satisfied with your "reasonable" gesture? Is it still reasonable?
Ruby,
1 – I do not agree with your reasonableness standard or the example you give.
2 – My example/analogy is not disingenuous (please refrain from making inflammatory accusations), but it goes to my point – that we as sikhs are not asking for the right to carry weapons or to be treated in some special way, but rather to be able to practice our faith as we do in other places. Rules of accommodation are created for this very reason.
Just to connect the kara comment more clearly for you – in France, the powers that be are distressed and intimidated by simple showings of religious affiliation – including the kara. By the logic presented in your posts, this is enough to ask Sikhs to refrain from wearing karas. This is the same logic used against kirpans. It is also used to racial profile people at airports.
One problem I see with this type of logic is that it is not engaged enough with helping people understand each other, but instead it is based around fitting in – or “reciprocating” – you let me keep something and I will give something up. What if our reciprocation in the form of wearing a kirpan of a “reasonable size” or hiding it under our clothes, is not enough? What if the community you are reciprocating with/trying to please is not satisfied with your “reasonable” gesture? Is it still reasonable?
So P Singh, you basically have no consideration of non Sikhs feelings regarding the kirpan? Even though the carrying of oversized kirpans and the unsheathing of them occurs, causes fear and alarm and intimidation amongst non Sikhs, you honestly believe that Sikhs have no responsibility to think of the concerns of others and how they are affected by their actions? That is incredibly arrogant isn't it? You don't think Sikhs have a responsibility to be moderate and reasonable in their manifestation of their religion specifically in the case of kirpans?
I have given you examples of kirpans being used for violence in public. The reason why the case of the schoolboy in Scotland is not in the news is because local school officers hushed up the story to prevent it damaging race relations there. There have been attempted murders and riots in which kirpans have been used as weapons, not just in Britain but in Canada too.
Multicultural societies require give and take. Sikhs need to respect the feelings and attitudes of non Sikhs as much as they have to have their beliefs respected. If you don't do that, how can yous ay you're integrating into a society?
People are frightened when they see people walking around with knives. Sikhs have to respect that and act accordingly, and restrict the wearing of kirpans to certain rules, ie that they are small in size, blunt, always remain sheathed, and remain worn under the clothing. This is a perfectly reasonable accomodation for a multicultural society. But this takes Sikhs being reasonable themselves. I was emphasising the importance of this.
So P Singh, you basically have no consideration of non Sikhs feelings regarding the kirpan? Even though the carrying of oversized kirpans and the unsheathing of them occurs, causes fear and alarm and intimidation amongst non Sikhs, you honestly believe that Sikhs have no responsibility to think of the concerns of others and how they are affected by their actions? That is incredibly arrogant isn’t it? You don’t think Sikhs have a responsibility to be moderate and reasonable in their manifestation of their religion specifically in the case of kirpans?
I have given you examples of kirpans being used for violence in public. The reason why the case of the schoolboy in Scotland is not in the news is because local school officers hushed up the story to prevent it damaging race relations there. There have been attempted murders and riots in which kirpans have been used as weapons, not just in Britain but in Canada too.
Multicultural societies require give and take. Sikhs need to respect the feelings and attitudes of non Sikhs as much as they have to have their beliefs respected. If you don’t do that, how can yous ay you’re integrating into a society?
People are frightened when they see people walking around with knives. Sikhs have to respect that and act accordingly, and restrict the wearing of kirpans to certain rules, ie that they are small in size, blunt, always remain sheathed, and remain worn under the clothing. This is a perfectly reasonable accomodation for a multicultural society. But this takes Sikhs being reasonable themselves. I was emphasising the importance of this.
Ruby,
I understand your sentiment,
But I ask what is the basic purpose of wearing a Kirpan in the first place for Sikhs?
Ruby,
I understand your sentiment,
But I ask what is the basic purpose of wearing a Kirpan in the first place for Sikhs?
Ruby,
It is a little disingenious to strengthen your argument, by stating
No where did I say that Sikhs have no responsibility or should have no regard to the feelings of non-Sikhs. In fact, I have pointed to ignorance as the root of this fear, and education as a means of alleviating it.
I also find your recurring reference of "unsheathing" kirpans to be grossly exaggerated as the vast majority of Sikhs simply do not unsheath their kirpans in public. We can both attest to our personal experiences in this matter – to no avail – or we can point to documented incidents where kirpans were unsheathed and caused harm/fear.
In over a hundred years of kirpans in Canada, surely, surely there should have been several such cases if unsheathing of kirpans was a common or even semi-common ocurrence. The examples you have provided carry very little weight when balanced against the dearth of such cases and incidents in Canada, the US, and the UK.
So, turning to Sikhs wearing kirpans openly, or turbans and beards for that matter, there will always be a segment of the population frightened, scared, intimidated by the image presented. Should I now hide my kirpan under my clothes, throw away my turban, and shave off my beard, in consideration of non-Sikhs who may find me intimidating, frightening, scary?
Not a chance. My responsibility extends to educating those who are open to learning more about me and my faith, being open, caring, and compassionate in my actions – but they do not include hiding my articles of faith for fear of what others may think.
No, it is not arrogant. It is practicing my faith openly, proudly, and fearlessly. If I was to adhere to your take on things, I should either have to remain cloistered amongst Sikhs only, or have to remove all markers of identity and faith, such as the turban, the un-shorn hair, the beard, the kirpan, and anything else that may frighten the ignorant.
Ruby,
It is a little disingenious to strengthen your argument, by stating
No where did I say that Sikhs have no responsibility or should have no regard to the feelings of non-Sikhs. In fact, I have pointed to ignorance as the root of this fear, and education as a means of alleviating it.
I also find your recurring reference of “unsheathing” kirpans to be grossly exaggerated as the vast majority of Sikhs simply do not unsheath their kirpans in public. We can both attest to our personal experiences in this matter – to no avail – or we can point to documented incidents where kirpans were unsheathed and caused harm/fear.
In over a hundred years of kirpans in Canada, surely, surely there should have been several such cases if unsheathing of kirpans was a common or even semi-common ocurrence. The examples you have provided carry very little weight when balanced against the dearth of such cases and incidents in Canada, the US, and the UK.
So, turning to Sikhs wearing kirpans openly, or turbans and beards for that matter, there will always be a segment of the population frightened, scared, intimidated by the image presented. Should I now hide my kirpan under my clothes, throw away my turban, and shave off my beard, in consideration of non-Sikhs who may find me intimidating, frightening, scary?
Not a chance. My responsibility extends to educating those who are open to learning more about me and my faith, being open, caring, and compassionate in my actions – but they do not include hiding my articles of faith for fear of what others may think.
No, it is not arrogant. It is practicing my faith openly, proudly, and fearlessly. If I was to adhere to your take on things, I should either have to remain cloistered amongst Sikhs only, or have to remove all markers of identity and faith, such as the turban, the un-shorn hair, the beard, the kirpan, and anything else that may frighten the ignorant.
[quote comment="824"]
But I ask what is the basic purpose of wearing a Kirpan in the first place for Sikhs?[/quote]
I think this explains it best…
Kirpan: The sword is the emblem of courage and self-defense. It symbolizes dignity and self-reliance, the capacity and readiness to always defend the weak and the oppressed. It helps sustain one's martial spirit and the determination to sacrifice oneself in order to defend truth, oppression and Sikh moral values.The rule is never to do injustice and never let anyone do injustice.
[quote comment=”824″]
But I ask what is the basic purpose of wearing a Kirpan in the first place for Sikhs?[/quote]
I think this explains it best…
Kirpan: The sword is the emblem of courage and self-defense. It symbolizes dignity and self-reliance, the capacity and readiness to always defend the weak and the oppressed. It helps sustain one’s martial spirit and the determination to sacrifice oneself in order to defend truth, oppression and Sikh moral values.The rule is never to do injustice and never let anyone do injustice.
No. Ruby, it sounds like your consternation stems in large part from either a gross misunderstanding of the role of the Kirpan (and what is considered appropriate use) versus your reaction to a group that you describe as "young men who are particularly fundamentalist followers of a certain sect." By definition that implies that these young men are not the majority among kirpan-wearers, and that further, their actions may well contravene what the community at large has adopted as normative guidelines.
Aman, schools (in the U.S./Canada) are actually governed by rules that are stricter than other public spaces in a way that parallels are (new) expectations around airport security. The agist in me wants to know: Why, when taking amrit is supposed to be an affirmative choice that requires maturity, preadolescents and tweens (K-8, not highschool) are carrying kirpans? [I know you don't have to take amrit to carry a kirpan, but I don't meet many people in the diaspora who don't retain both].
At any rate, I was interested in the issue of the turban, but since we're talking about the kirpan, perhaps we can also consider how to frame explanations to an audience that may not understand Sikhi's required articles of faith.
No. Ruby, it sounds like your consternation stems in large part from either a gross misunderstanding of the role of the Kirpan (and what is considered appropriate use) versus your reaction to a group that you describe as “young men who are particularly fundamentalist followers of a certain sect.” By definition that implies that these young men are not the majority among kirpan-wearers, and that further, their actions may well contravene what the community at large has adopted as normative guidelines.
Aman, schools (in the U.S./Canada) are actually governed by rules that are stricter than other public spaces in a way that parallels are (new) expectations around airport security. The agist in me wants to know: Why, when taking amrit is supposed to be an affirmative choice that requires maturity, preadolescents and tweens (K-8, not highschool) are carrying kirpans? [I know you don’t have to take amrit to carry a kirpan, but I don’t meet many people in the diaspora who don’t retain both].
At any rate, I was interested in the issue of the turban, but since we’re talking about the kirpan, perhaps we can also consider how to frame explanations to an audience that may not understand Sikhi’s required articles of faith.